Revision history [back]

You can fake velocity control with a position-controlled robot using the jog_arm package. Video here. That video shows jogging in the Cartesian end-effector frame but you can also control individual joints.

That video shows a simulation of a Motoman SIA5. I don't know if the Gazebo simulation controllers are a 100% accurate representation of the hardware controllers. Hopefully somebody more knowledgeable will weigh in on that.

However, there are some fundamental reasons [1, 2, 3] why compliance/impedance/admittance works better when the hardware joints are velocity-controlled... so it would be best to find a true velocity-controlled robot. I think this concept is just catching on.

It's too bad you can't make a UR10 work. Could you trim 2kg from the end-effector mass?

[1] General Model of Human-Robot Cooperation Using a Novel Velocity Based Variable Impedance Control, Duchaine [2] The Advantages of Velocity Control for Reactive Robot Motion, Zelenak [3] UR10 Performance Analysis, Ravn. Note, speed control of the joints was the only control method that had no drawbacks.

You can fake velocity control with a position-controlled robot using the jog_arm package. Video here. That video shows jogging in the Cartesian end-effector frame but you can also control individual joints.joints and we have been using it for compliance.

That video shows a simulation of a Motoman SIA5. I don't know if the Gazebo simulation controllers are a 100% accurate representation of the hardware controllers. Hopefully somebody more knowledgeable will weigh in on that.

However, there are some fundamental reasons [1, 2, 3] why compliance/impedance/admittance compliance works better when the hardware joints are velocity-controlled... so it would be best to find a true velocity-controlled robot. I think this concept is just catching on.

It's too bad you can't make a UR10 work. Could you trim 2kg from the end-effector mass?

[1] General Model of Human-Robot Cooperation Using a Novel Velocity Based Variable Impedance Control, Duchaine [2] The Advantages of Velocity Control for Reactive Robot Motion, Zelenak [3] UR10 Performance Analysis, Ravn. Note, speed control of the joints was the only control method that had no drawbacks.

You can fake velocity control with a position-controlled robot using the jog_arm package. Video here. That video shows jogging in the Cartesian end-effector frame but you can also control individual joints and we have been using it for compliance. In fact, the package contains a library for compliance.

That video shows a simulation of a Motoman SIA5. I don't know if the Gazebo simulation controllers are a 100% accurate representation of the hardware controllers. Hopefully somebody more knowledgeable will weigh in on that.

However, there are some fundamental reasons [1, 2, 3] why compliance works better when the hardware joints are velocity-controlled... so it would be best to find a true velocity-controlled robot. I think this concept is just catching on.

It's too bad you can't make a UR10 work. Could you trim 2kg from the end-effector mass?

[1] General Model of Human-Robot Cooperation Using a Novel Velocity Based Variable Impedance Control, Duchaine [2] The Advantages of Velocity Control for Reactive Robot Motion, Zelenak [3] UR10 Performance Analysis, Ravn. Note, speed control of the joints was the only control method that had no drawbacks.

You can fake velocity control with a position-controlled robot using the jog_arm package. Video here. That video shows jogging in the Cartesian end-effector frame but you can also control individual joints and we have been using it for compliance. In fact, the package contains a library for compliance.

That video shows a simulation of a Motoman SIA5. I don't know if the Gazebo simulation controllers are a 100% accurate representation of the hardware controllers. Hopefully somebody more knowledgeable will weigh in on that.

However, there are some fundamental reasons [1, 2, 3] why compliance works better when the hardware joints are velocity-controlled... so it would be best to find a true velocity-controlled robot. I think this concept is just catching on.

It's too bad you can't make a UR10 work. Could you trim 2kg from the end-effector mass?mass? Also, realize that the robot payload ratings are based on worst-case scenarios, like full acceleration at full extension. I would be tempted to try a UR10 anyway.

[1] General Model of Human-Robot Cooperation Using a Novel Velocity Based Variable Impedance Control, Duchaine [2] The Advantages of Velocity Control for Reactive Robot Motion, Zelenak [3] UR10 Performance Analysis, Ravn. Note, speed control of the joints was the only control method that had no drawbacks.

You can fake velocity control with a position-controlled robot using the jog_arm package. Video here. That video shows jogging in the Cartesian end-effector frame but you can also control individual joints and we have been using it for compliance. In fact, the package contains a library for compliance.

That video shows a simulation of a Motoman SIA5. I don't know if the Gazebo simulation controllers are a 100% accurate representation of the hardware controllers. Hopefully somebody more knowledgeable will weigh in on that.

However, there are some fundamental reasons [1, 2, 3] why compliance works better when the hardware joints are velocity-controlled... so it would be best to find a true velocity-controlled robot. I think this concept is just catching on.

It's too bad you can't make a UR10 work. Could you trim 2kg from the end-effector mass? Also, realize that the robot payload ratings are based on worst-case scenarios, like full acceleration at full extension. I would be tempted to try a UR10 anyway.

[1] General Model of Human-Robot Cooperation Using a Novel Velocity Based Variable Impedance Control, Duchaine Duchaine

[2] The Advantages of Velocity Control for Reactive Robot Motion, Zelenak Zelenak

[3] UR10 Performance Analysis, Ravn. Note, speed control of the joints was the only control method that had no drawbacks.